Bill Simmons' fan-friendly solution to fix the NBA

[PosImpos]

Aren't the two ideas contradictory?

If, for instance, every non-playoff team has an equal shot at Lebron or Duncan, don't you think the "play in" rounds would basically be a race to see who could "rest" the most starters?  I mean, what's better for a franchise, losing in the 1st round as an 8th seed, or having a 1/13 shot a the next superstar?

I agree, his ideas would not work if they were all implemented.  I think he was kind of just throwing ideas out there.

I really like his idea to not allow teams to raise ticket prices if they don't make the playoffs for a long period of time.  If teams want to make their fans pay, they should be required to make their best effort to put a winning product on the floor.

[CoachCowens]

Not sure if it could make the regular season any less relevant to the non playoff teams. Good point about teams tanking out of the playoffs but at least there is a little incentive there. Simmons solution is not perfect but at least he is advancing the notion that the current system is broke and needs fixing.

Good luck getting the players Union to agree to non guaranteed contracts.

 

Anyone who is interested in the NBA knows about its problems.

And the thing is his idea would not only make the regular season irrelevant for non playoff teams, it would also make it irrelevant for some playoff teams. It would turn the regular season into a prolonged preseason.


Regarding making contracts non-guaranteed. All it takes is something to make up for it: make contracts non-guaranteed past X number of years in exchange for raising the minimum payroll.

Might not happen, but still is significantly more realistic than his proposals, especially the mandated ticket price cut one.

Simmons suggests populist gimmicks that would never work because, well, they are gimmicks.

Best way to make sure smaller franchises give a crap is higher minimum payrolls with non-guaranteed contracts and higher contracts for top rookies.

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

[action781]

I agree with some of Simmons' points on fixing the NBA itself and enjoy his writing for the most part.

One problem I have his article is that he is a "people's writer" meaning his arguments are on behalf of the people.  He writes about the NBA as if it's some sort of public service to make it as cheap as possible for the fans while putting a good product out there.  No.  He acknowledges that the NBA is a business, yet he ignores it in his arguments and logic.  There needs to be absolutely no rule about when a team can or cannot raise ticket prices.    There is only 1 rule when a team should increase or decrease ticket prices.  That is, when the equilibrium between the team's supply and demand curves makes them more or less money.  Simple as that.  That is the ONLY rule a team should follow because an NBA team is a business and it's objective is to maximize profit.  Anybody who decides he or she can write about a business, IMO, should have at least some understanding of the basics of Microeconomics 101.

Do I wish that the celtics didn't raise my season ticket prices?  Of course I do.  But I understand it is a business and they need to maximize profit.  If there is a waiting list for season tickets, then their prices are not set at where they need to be for maximum profitability.  If one pair of Jordan's is $100, then the next pair is actually a lesser quality shoe, but priced at $110, would anybody complain or make an argument against it?  No, because people see Jordan as more of a business and an NBA team as having more of a "responsibility" to please people.  But bottom line, the NBA unfortunately is a business too and there are people will millions of dollars invested in this business and it's focus is profitability.

[dlpin]

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

I already address this issue in the post you quoted. It being a lottery provides a lot more disincentive to tank than a situation which would lead even playoff teams to tank, which is what would happen in Simmons's case.

Right now, competing for the last playoff spot play hard for it because being the 8th seed is better than a less than 1% chance at a top pick. Under Simmons' idea, everyone who is not a top 6 team in a conference has absolutely no incentive to play hard because they would be in the wild card anyways. What is more, they would have a huge incentive to tank.

[BballTim]

I like his ideas to prevent tanking.

  One thing I'd look at to prevent tanking is to base the lottery on a three year rolling average of team's records. You might let the current year count slightly more than the others, but not greatly more. First of all this would lessen the incentive of teams that are decent for a couple of years to throw away a season. If you win 80-90 total games over two years then winning 25 games in year three probably won't get you in the bottom 5. For non-playoff teams you only get 1/3 or so of the benefit for losing, or 1/3 or so the penalty for winning. Another method would be to base the lottery on total losses in a season but only give 1/2 a loss for every loss that happens after the trade deadline. Maybe a combo of the two, one to cut back on the incentive of tanking a season and the other to cut the benefit of tanking March and April after you're out of it.

[CoachCowens]

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

I already address this issue in the post you quoted. It being a lottery provides a lot more disincentive to tank than a situation which would lead even playoff teams to tank, which is what would happen in Simmons's case.

Right now, competing for the last playoff spot play hard for it because being the 8th seed is better than a less than 1% chance at a top pick. Under Simmons' idea, everyone who is not a top 6 team in a conference has absolutely no incentive to play hard because they would be in the wild card anyways. What is more, they would have a huge incentive to tank.

And I agree that those playoff bubble teams have some incentive to tank. Although there is the playoff money, merchandise selling and the lure of the playoffs.   

I don't think the lottery has been a disincentive to tank at all and the case could be made that it has brought tanking from the bottom hand full to the 5- 14 worst teams. Better to lose and get more ping pong balls. The lure of a better lottery ticket is pretty strong.

Again i'm not saying it's perfect but the current lottery is not the answer either.

[guava_wrench]

Not sure if it could make the regular season any less relevant to the non playoff teams. Good point about teams tanking out of the playoffs but at least there is a little incentive there. Simmons solution is not perfect but at least he is advancing the notion that the current system is broke and needs fixing.

Good luck getting the players Union to agree to non guaranteed contracts.

 

Anyone who is interested in the NBA knows about its problems.

And the thing is his idea would not only make the regular season irrelevant for non playoff teams, it would also make it irrelevant for some playoff teams. It would turn the regular season into a prolonged preseason.


Regarding making contracts non-guaranteed. All it takes is something to make up for it: make contracts non-guaranteed past X number of years in exchange for raising the minimum payroll.

Might not happen, but still is significantly more realistic than his proposals, especially the mandated ticket price cut one.

Simmons suggests populist gimmicks that would never work because, well, they are gimmicks.

Best way to make sure smaller franchises give a crap is higher minimum payrolls with non-guaranteed contracts and higher contracts for top rookies.

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

The lottery has made losing less beneficial in the NBA than it is in any other sport. That's as good as it is going to get.

Tanking usually means playing young players over better veterans. How is that a problem? If you have no hope this year, why not play for next year? Shedding salary is also done just as much in baseball. I would say that Marlins do this more than any NBA team.

This drama is a non-problem. In every sport, not every team will be competitive. So what?

[CoachCowens]

Not sure if it could make the regular season any less relevant to the non playoff teams. Good point about teams tanking out of the playoffs but at least there is a little incentive there. Simmons solution is not perfect but at least he is advancing the notion that the current system is broke and needs fixing.

Good luck getting the players Union to agree to non guaranteed contracts.

 

Anyone who is interested in the NBA knows about its problems.

And the thing is his idea would not only make the regular season irrelevant for non playoff teams, it would also make it irrelevant for some playoff teams. It would turn the regular season into a prolonged preseason.


Regarding making contracts non-guaranteed. All it takes is something to make up for it: make contracts non-guaranteed past X number of years in exchange for raising the minimum payroll.

Might not happen, but still is significantly more realistic than his proposals, especially the mandated ticket price cut one.

Simmons suggests populist gimmicks that would never work because, well, they are gimmicks.

Best way to make sure smaller franchises give a crap is higher minimum payrolls with non-guaranteed contracts and higher contracts for top rookies.

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

The lottery has made losing less beneficial in the NBA than it is in any other sport. That's as good as it is going to get.

Tanking usually means playing young players over better veterans. How is that a problem? If you have no hope this year, why not play for next year? Shedding salary is also done just as much in baseball. I would say that Marlins do this more than any NBA team.

This drama is a non-problem. In every sport, not every team will be competitive. So what?

I don't know if you can compare the 2 sports since the draft is much less important in baseball. But even if you do, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I don't have the time to compare MLB to know if star players on bad teams sit out the during the end of the season as much as they do in the NBA but my perception is they don't.

The Marlins traded Lowell and Beckett for Hanley Ramirez. Did the Wizards get half of Jamison's value?

The lottery lessens the value of having the last position but it increases the value of the other positions.   

[guava_wrench]

Not sure if it could make the regular season any less relevant to the non playoff teams. Good point about teams tanking out of the playoffs but at least there is a little incentive there. Simmons solution is not perfect but at least he is advancing the notion that the current system is broke and needs fixing.

Good luck getting the players Union to agree to non guaranteed contracts.

 

Anyone who is interested in the NBA knows about its problems.

And the thing is his idea would not only make the regular season irrelevant for non playoff teams, it would also make it irrelevant for some playoff teams. It would turn the regular season into a prolonged preseason.


Regarding making contracts non-guaranteed. All it takes is something to make up for it: make contracts non-guaranteed past X number of years in exchange for raising the minimum payroll.

Might not happen, but still is significantly more realistic than his proposals, especially the mandated ticket price cut one.

Simmons suggests populist gimmicks that would never work because, well, they are gimmicks.

Best way to make sure smaller franchises give a crap is higher minimum payrolls with non-guaranteed contracts and higher contracts for top rookies.

But the regular season is already irrelevant for the non playoff teams. You can change the salary structure and contracts but how does that change the incentive for tanking? they are rewarded with more ping pong balls if they tank. The NBA usually has a few high prizes at the top. The more you lose the more you win.

 

The lottery has made losing less beneficial in the NBA than it is in any other sport. That's as good as it is going to get.

Tanking usually means playing young players over better veterans. How is that a problem? If you have no hope this year, why not play for next year? Shedding salary is also done just as much in baseball. I would say that Marlins do this more than any NBA team.

This drama is a non-problem. In every sport, not every team will be competitive. So what?

I don't know if you can compare the 2 sports since the draft is much less important in baseball. But even if you do, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I don't have the time to compare MLB to know if star players on bad teams sit out the during the end of the season as much as they do in the NBA but my perception is they don't.

The Marlins traded Lowell and Beckett for Hanley Ramirez. Did the Wizards get half of Jamison's value?

The lottery lessens the value of having the last position but it increases the value of the other positions.   

The Marlins have done far more than that one trade. After the Marlins win world series, they dismantle their roster shipping everyone out for prospects.

Other teams in baseball don't even bother putting up a fight, barely achieving the minimal allowable payroll.

No reason to be bothered about these things. There is nothing to complain about in the Jamison deal. Why do the wizards need to get half of Jamison's value? They made a mistake resigning him this offseason for too much money. They were able to partly undo the deal. I see no problem there.

The deals were far worse 30 years ago. It's best to just relax and enjoy the games.

I suppose next Simmons will write an article about getting rid of free agency because of how the Knicks and Nets tanked a season to clear cap space.

The only change related to this issue that I would consider reasonable would be not allowing players to return as a free agent to a team that traded them that same season. Still, I have problems with idea since sometimes marginal player are traded where only the original team would have an interest in picking them back up. Why should the player suffer it no one else wants them. (An example scenario would be when such a player is cut by a team after a trade in order to get their roster below 16.)

[Kuberski33]

I would personally like to see the league contract a about half a dozen teams.  This would place more talent on the remaining rosters and lessen the need to depend on the lottery to get a shot at the next superstar. 

The play in tournament would definitely spice things up a bit - as the last 2 teams in under the current system have zero chances of winning it all anyways. 

But the one thing the league should really try to do is cut down on the length of contracts since a couple of bad decisions there can kill a team for years.  Plus  guys who do nothing to put people in the seats are getting paid these obscene amounts of money.  It's stupid when you really think about it.  Yes, pay the LeBrons and Kobe's but the price of mediocre NBA players who the average fan could care less about is hurting the league big time.

Keep the players hungry and they're going to play harder.  Keep 'em fat and you get our 2009-2010 Boston Celtics who seem to be giving the collective finger to their paying fans.

[wdleehi]

I hate his ideas to fix "tanking"



I hate the draft lotto. 



I would add flexibility for teams to change over rosters, especially ones that cost to much for to long and are not good enough.


I would make it so that strong teams had better chances to win, even if they don't have a top 5 player. 


And finally, I would improve the d-league to the point where it can compare to MLB and NHL in the ability to prepare players. 

[BballTim]

I would make it so that strong teams had better chances to win, even if they don't have a top 5 player. 

  This is a key, but it's hard to do. I think that a start would be to make sure that superstar don't get any better officiating that backups on mediocre teams.

[wdleehi]

I would make it so that strong teams had better chances to win, even if they don't have a top 5 player. 

  This is a key, but it's hard to do. I think that a start would be to make sure that superstar don't get any better officiating that backups on mediocre teams.

That's the first step.

[freshinthehouse]

I don't get the problem with tanking.  Would the 06-07 season have been that much more enjoyable than if we hadn't tanked?  We still would've been awful regardless.

[slamtheking]

I like his ideas to prevent tanking.

  One thing I'd look at to prevent tanking is to base the lottery on a three year rolling average of team's records. You might let the current year count slightly more than the others, but not greatly more. First of all this would lessen the incentive of teams that are decent for a couple of years to throw away a season. If you win 80-90 total games over two years then winning 25 games in year three probably won't get you in the bottom 5. For non-playoff teams you only get 1/3 or so of the benefit for losing, or 1/3 or so the penalty for winning. Another method would be to base the lottery on total losses in a season but only give 1/2 a loss for every loss that happens after the trade deadline. Maybe a combo of the two, one to cut back on the incentive of tanking a season and the other to cut the benefit of tanking March and April after you're out of it.

a weighted system isn't a half-bad idea.  the perpetually bad teams have the chance to improve moreso than the teams that had an off year.  (would have eliminated Timmy going to SA).  The move back to equal chances in the lottery for each team isn't the greatest--->how the Knicks got Ewing.

Perhaps a system where the lottery teams are segmented into either 2 or 3 groups where say the teams outside the playoffs with the worst 7 records go into a 1-ball-per-team drawing that retains the current practice of only drawing 3 teams and resorting the rest in descending order and the other 7 non-playoff teams go into a similar drawing.  There's no real advantage to tanking since you can only move up a little in the draft and the truly worst teams still get a chance at someone decent.